Artiene Talebi
Almost 20 years after Roe v. Wade decision was made, the supreme court was once again tasked with a difficult decision regarding abortions. In a 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. [4]
Casey was a pivotal moment in US abortion rights history as it marked a significant turning point in the freedom to the right of abortions. The decision took a strong pro-abortion stance at the time which helped reaffirm the decision made in 1973. At the time, and for many years after the decision, it was thought by the public that this decision would effectively settle the abortion wars. It was thought to have done this in two ways. First, the decision helped create an environment in which the Supreme Court is unlikely either to overturn Roe or to return the Roe trimester test. Second, the decision helped create an environment in which state lawmakers-if and when Roe were overturned – would be unlikely to outlaw abortion or pass more stringent restrictions (than those enacted by Pennsylvania and approved by the Supreme Court in Casey). [2]
However, in recent years it’s been made clear that this wasn’t the case as restrictions on abortion rights have continued to be put in place and Roe v. Wade was overturned. The problem originally arose with the vagueness of the ruling. The original ruling of Roe set in place a trimester framework that was more or less clear cut. This was scrapped by Casey in favor of what was called “undue burden”. This meant that women were given the right to an abortion until it put an “undue burden” onto the person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable. The ruling left an undefined definition on what restrictions could be made. According to a recent article written by NPR, “That gray area opened the door for states to pass laws that require counseling before an abortion, waiting periods and parental involvement for a minor. There were also additional physician and hospital restrictions added in some states.” [5]
The decision to remain with a broader definition was taken well by members of both parties. An Article by the Michigan Law review states that, “Neither majority opinion questioned Casey’s formulation of the constitutional test. Casey appears to have defined a consensus that has reduced the pressure on the Court to reassess basic principles and that has endured for almost a decade.”[6]
Nearly 30 years after this decision, a global pandemic broke out unlike anything the world had ever seen. The Covid-19 pandemic brought everyday life to a halt and forced people to become extremely cautious of health and safety matters. One may ask, how do these two seemingly unrelated events correlate with each other in the slightest. As a matter of fact, both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant amount of impact on the future of Roe v. Wade decision and abortion laws in the US.
During the height of the pandemic, vaccine mandates became regular in many areas of the US. Once these mandates were implemented, many people took anger to these and began to protest as a result. Resistance to COVID-19 vaccination has led to renewed interest in the abortion debate, as opponents of the new mandates have asserted that the legal arguments behind requiring vaccines are inconsistent with those protecting abortion. Some figures have even gone so far as to revive the “my body, my choice slogan” created by the reproductive freedom movement as a rallying call to end vaccine mandates. [1] From a legal standpoint, the conflict has escalated to the courtroom. Parties across the United States are of the belief that vaccine mandates cannot be squared with the constitutional protection of abortion access. [1] This debate, in essence, threw a copious amount of mystery into the future of abortion law as there was thought by some to be a sense of hypocrisy in some of the decision making between vaccination status and abortion rights.
This debate acted as a reason that sparked many states to create more restrictive laws and regulations on abortion. This led to many states experiencing a drop in abortions performed. Alongside this, In the state of Massachusetts there were no major policy changes regarding abortions. However there were 1725 less abortions than expected, corresponding to a 20% drop, from March 2020 to December 2020. [3] It was found that despite uninterrupted abortion service provision, abortion care utilization decreased markedly in Massachusetts during the pandemic. This continues the trend of mystery surrounding Covid and abortions as it is yet to be determined why there was such a strong decrease in correlation with vaccine mandates being placed. [3]
While the two events are extremely contrasting, politically and legally, they served as ways to create question marks and vagueness surrounding the abortion laws in the US. The grey-area that was put in place by the Casey decision allowed states to have more broad definitions in their rules around abortions. Similarly, due to the various mandates put in place because of the pandemic, many states were able to use the same reasoning to apply it to rules surrounding another aspect of healthcare.
Overall, both of these events resulted in decision-making power being delegated from the federal governments to local and state judiciary bodies. With the overturning of Roe, this has been amplified significantly. This has created a US landscape which has a vastly different stance on abortion all across the country.
Works Cited
[1] Curcio, Alyssa. “IMMUNIZING ROE: HOW COURT TREATMENT OF COVID-I9 VACCINE MANDATES SUPPORTS REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 43.1 (2022): 1-30. ProQuest. Web. 13 Apr. 2023.
[2] Devins, Neal. “How ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey’ (Pretty Much) Settled the Abortion Wars.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 118, no. 7, 2009, pp. 1318–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40389508. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.
[3] Fulcher IR;Onwuzurike C;Goldberg AB;Cottrill AA;Fortin J;Janiak E; “The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Abortion Care Utilization and Disparities by Age.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35114184/.
[4]“Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 12 Apr. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/event/Planned-Parenthood-of-Southeastern-Pennsylvania-v-Casey.
[5] Shivaram, Deepa. “Roe Established Abortion Rights. 20 Years Later, Casey Paved the Way for Restrictions.” NPR, NPR, 6 May 2022, https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096885897/roe-established-abortion-rights-20-years-later-casey-paved-the-way-for-restricti.
[6] Whitman, Chris. “Looking Back on Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 100, no. 7, 2002, pp. 1980–96. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1556082. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.
I found your comparison of Planned Parenthood v. Casey and the Covid pandemic very intriguing. I had not thought of the link between individuals arguing for the rights of their own bodies. It was an interesting connection and helped to connect the memory to a more modern and relatable topic for myself.
Really interesting how a string of events that doesn’t seem to have mattered, actually affected one another. A main belief of Confucianism is that everything is connected and I believe this is supporting that notion. The rise of “my body my choice” has risen over the last couple of years with the pandemic; except the difference resides the switch in political parties using this phrase.